Matter of Goldman

[*1] Matter of Goldman 2008 NY Slip Op 52419(U) [21 Misc 3d 1138(A)] Decided on November 12, 2008 Sur Ct, New York County Glen, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 12, 2008
Sur Ct, New York County

In the Matter of the Estate of Sol Goldman, Deceased.



4686-1987

Kristin Booth Glen, J.

Petitioners have requested an order sealing the court file in this proceeding for the judicial settlement of the third intermediate account of the executors of the Will of Sol Goldman. In support of their application, petitioners cite a 1992 order of the Appellate Division which directed sealing of the record in a proceeding to compel an interim distribution from this estate, and a 1994 order of this court allowing sealing of papers in related proceedings "to the extent they contain confidential information concerning inventories or valuation of estate property." Referring to those orders, petitioners assert that "[t]he importance of keeping the financial information under seal has not changed." They allege further that "[t]he financial information disclosed in the Third Intermediate Account is highly confidential [and] proprietary, and of the type that courts have traditionally afforded confidential status..."; and that disclosure of the information "would put the estate at a substantial disadvantage in future transactions" and "would likely result in significant concrete harm to the Estate..."

The sealing order is sought pursuant to section 216.1 of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (NYCRR § 216.1) which provides in relevant part:(a) Except where otherwise provided by statute or rule, a court shall not enter an order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether in whole or in part, except upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the parties...

As this court stated in Matter of Hofmann, 188 Misc 2d 841 (2001), affd 284 AD2d 92 (1st Dept 2001), "The rule reflects a longstanding recognition of the importance of allowing public access to court records in order to protect the general right of the public to have open court proceedings... " Maintaining open records is essential to ensuring that court proceedings are conducted "efficiently, honestly, and fairly" (Matter of Brownstone, 191 AD2d 167, 168 [1st Dept 1993]). Public access is as an entitlement of "constitutional dimension" (Danco Labs., Ltd. v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1 [1st Dept 2000]).

Court authorization for sealing is granted reluctantly, and then only under strictly limited circumstances. Closing the files is not necessarily warranted even when necessary to protect a business advantage (Gryphon Domestic VI v APP International Finance Company, 28 AD3d 322 [1st Dept 2006]) or in absence of opposition to the sealing request (L.K. Station Group v Quantek [*2]Media, NYLJ, Aug 18, 2008, at 18, col 1 [Sup Ct NY County]). There must be a showing of compelling circumstances to justify departure from the strong preference for allowing public access to court records (Gryphon Domestic VI v APP International Finance Company, supra; Doe v NYU, 6 Misc 3d 866 [Sup Ct NY County 2004]).

Further, a sealing order cannot be granted on mere conclusory allegations of harm. Rule 216.1 directs the court to specify the reason, in writing, for overriding the general imperative that court records shall be available to the public. Thus, a request for sealing should specify each document sought to be sealed, and the particular reason for sealing, including the lack of any feasible alternative (L.K. Station Group v Quantek Media, supra). The burden of establishing the requisite "good cause" falls on the party seeking the sealing order (Doe v NYU,

supra, and cases cited therein; L.K. Station Group v Quantek Media, supra).

Petitioners here have not met their burden. They have alleged no facts from which any harm to the estate can be inferred, much less harm that outweighs the importance of public access to the files. The 1992 and 1994 sealing orders on which they rely are distinguishable from the present circumstances in that the motion papers in support of the 1992 order detailed the specific danger to the estate of disseminating its then current financial status; the 1994 order expressly referred to confidential inventories and valuations. In the current accounting proceeding, however, the files contain no appraisals or inventories. Moreover, according to ¶ 9 of the verified petition, the values of estate properties reflected in the current accounting are the values as reported on the federal estate tax return, that is, the values as of the date of the decedent's death, which was October 18, 1987. It is not evident on its face that disclosure of 21 year old valuations would cause any harm to the estate, whether significant, concrete, or otherwise.

The court notes that this estate was granted a sealing order in a 1995 proceeding to declare its obligations terminated under a contract for the sale of certain real property, where the executors alleged that disclosure of the contract's terms would "obstruct the ability of [the estate] to sell the Property at the most advantageous price in the future."[FN1] In the instant proceeding, however, petitioners have not identified any information in the court file the disclosure of which could jeopardize future estate transactions.

Although afforded the opportunity to do so, petitioners have not offered grounds to justify sealing of the files in this third intermediate accounting. Accordingly, the request for sealing the file is denied. The court will stay this decision denying sealing for 30 days from the entry of the decree herein, to allow petitioners an additional opportunity to plead specific grounds for their request should they choose to do so.

The petition for settlement of the executors' third intermediate account of proceedings is otherwise granted, and the decree is signed.

______________________________________ [*3]

S U R R O G A T E

Dated: November 12, 2008 Footnotes

Footnote 1: As this and other pleadings referred to herein are under seal, specific references have been omitted.